Thanks, I see it, that's a good overview. However, we don't know much more than it "appears" to be the fairing sep that caused the failure.

Which fairing size was used on this mission?

5.1 Payload FairingsTaurus oﬀers two payload fairing conﬁgurations, enabling the Customer to optimize performance and volume requirements. The 92” diameter payload fairing provides the largest payload en-velope, while the 63” diameter fairing provides increased performance-to-orbit with a smaller payload envelope. Both provide security and en-vironmental control during ground processing, integration operations, and ascent. The fairings utilize graphite/epoxy composite construction, are RF-opaque, and include one inch (25.4 mm) thick internal acoustic blankets to control the payload acoustic environment.The two halves of the fairing are structurally joined along their longitudinal interface using Orbital’s low contamination frangible joint system. An ad-ditional circumferential frangible joint at the base of the fairing attaches the fairing to the Stage 3 assembly. At separation, a gas pressurization sys-tem is activated to pressurize the fairing deploy-ment thrusters. The fairing halves then rotate about external hinges that control the fairing de-ployment to ensure that payload and launch ve-hicle clearances are maintained. All elements of the deployment system have been demonstrated through test to comply with stringent contamina-tion requirements. See graphics below.

Darn. Well, it just goes to show that even a 'routine' launch can be struck by the gremlins. If this was a fairing seperation no-go, it could have been something as simple as a 25c bit of wire and solder in the trigger control cable that shook loose.

Speaking as an amateur, I assume that the Taurus US would have been in an 'insertion' trajectory that would have allowed the OCO to have entered orbit under its own power whilst the booster stage itself dropped back down and re-entered the atmosphere as it approached perigee. As the spacecraft could not seperate from the booster, it would burn up too.

Just out of interest, does anyone know where the spacecraft re-entered (it must have happened by now)? Somewhere over Antarctica or Southern Ocean/Indian Ocean?

Logged

"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Speaking as an amateur, I assume that the Taurus US would have been in an 'insertion' trajectory that would have allowed the OCO to have entered orbit under its own power whilst the booster stage itself dropped back down and re-entered the atmosphere as it approached perigee. As the spacecraft could not seperate from the booster, it would burn up too.

WASHINGTON -- NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory failed to reach orbit this morning after a 4:55 a.m. EST liftoff from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. A media briefing on the mishap has been tentatively scheduled for 7:15 a.m. from Vandenberg. The briefing will be carried on NASA TV.

For more information about the Orbiting Carbon Observatory mission, visit:

Depressing to say the least, but hey, that's what this business is about, you learn your lessons and you comeback. SpaceX were failing all over the place, and yet now they are NASA's poster child.

If it was down to a failure with fairing sep, one could assume it's a reasonably easy fix. Orbital have already gained the CRS contract and are working through it. They may have to answer some questions, but nothing along the lines of "hurt".

The vehicle more than likely splashed. Anyways if it did reach orbit, the spacecraft couldn't do anything, it is surrounded by a fairing, which means no power, no comm, no attitude references, no attitude control (thrusters are buried) and no orbit control